AN ANSWER TO A scandalous Paper, lately sent to the right Honourable the Lord Mayor,  
Touching a late Dispute intended by the Anabaptists with the Presbyterians.  
AS ALSO A brief Discovery of the gross mistakes and confused puslements of anabaptistical spirits in the point of Rebaptising, according to Mr. Saltmarsh, in somelate exceptions here recited.  
WITH A Reply to the main Arguments of F.C. the great anabaptistical Champion, by a well willer and daily desierer of a happy settlement of Truth and Peace.  
LONDON, Printed for T.B. 1646.   

A Reply to the anabaptistical Letter sent to the Lord Mayor by a nameless Author.  
FIrst, the Accusation therein is false, his Lordship broke not his Promise concerning the Disputation; For his Lordship promised, by the Accusers own confession, nothing but what the Honourable Houses should condescend unto, and since his Lordship was not sought unto in the first place before the private Disputation which was appointed, but by the multitude prevented, which they so much thronged to hear, having more puslement, then practise in it, certainly his Lordship upon mature deliberation, well considered the many ill conveniences, which might ensue, upon such a thronged  Disputation on your part.  
Secondly, Your spreading of your hopes to get the day of your desire, which was spread as you say, 30. or 40. mile, might upon the same ground as the former was, have prevented you if the multitude of City and Country could do it, and happy were it for both City and Country if there was not so much needless dispute and so little practice, which questionless his Lordship well perceives.  
Thirdly, Concerning his Lordship's publishing an adjournment of the Disputation to a convenient time, his Lordship declared sufficiently that it was but until he should receive the pleasure of both Houses about the same.  
Fourthly, Your taxing of his Lordship to turn your enemy by approving of the Remonstrance: for answer unto which though something therein may be excepted against, yet it was done doubtless upon a mature an advice & to as good purpose as your disputation might have proved: And if so many thousand eyes look upon his Lordship only as the furtherer of such a Disputation, though the same eyes look another way, his Lordship need not much to weigh that matter.  
Fiftly, Whereas you conclude that the Clergy and his Lordship having debated the matter suspect the truth of their cause and their own ability as not daring to show their faces in the open field, I am persuaded rather the needlessness of the Dispute and those far fetched pretences of yours, diving more into a circumstance than a substance, prevents the same, your own Weapons abroad sufficiently discover your skill to be no such Master Fencers as you pretend, and though seven Churches can join in one for a Confession, it is most certain all the seven are not able to establish one of those seven, though the least Congregation, into a practice of what they could all join in one to confess.  
In the sixth place whereas you remember his Lordship to be termed one of the bvilders of Zion, questioning whether it be Gods Zion or the Synagogue of Scotland, and as you say plainly, that it is out of question that the rule of God's word should be all our rule for Practise.  
Stand to your word (Practice) and then what practice do you mean, if by Practise you intent Baptism of whom you please to bestow it upon, you must either prove Baptism to be of more account than Paul makes it, or else lay by this your mention of Practice.  
Lastly, to sum up all your persuasions, insinuations and invectives, expecting to obtain your desire in a public Disputation, rebaptising being found of no concernment to a Christian life, and so plain disagreeing to circumsission for person, time and place, doth sufficiently satisfy those that are not so much taken up with circumstantial disputes as real practice in Life and Conversation, which in many by this means is much abated and eclipsed to that once they were, and if yet you stand in need of more work, clear those exceptions which Mr. Saltmarsh hath laid down, and there you shall find work enough to settle some that more nearly concern you, and not thus to look abroad for such a public Disputation.  
And thus leaving that Letter of false accusation, I shall give you in the exceptions of Mr. Saltmarsh against Rebaptising in his smoke in the Temple, page 10. etc. some of which I have here inserted ●ith little alteration.  
1. That anabaptistical Disciples cannot so baptise as the first did, because they are not so gifted and qualified as the Disciples of Christ and the Apostles were.  
2. That there was nver any one Disciple in all the new Testament, that did baptise by way of Authority, but he was able to make out the truth of his calling and dispensation, either by Miracles, or Gifts.  
3. Those ought not now to Rebaptise that take it thus upon them, unless they could give out the Holy Ghost with it, which they cannot do.  
4. That the Churches where Rebaptising is used where they pretend most full and pure practice of ordinances, yet have no greater gists than other Churches. But more particularly now to the main Arguments of one of the chief of their Champions.  
1. He argues thus: That which God hath joined together no man ought to separate, But faith or dipping according to the original no man ought to separate.  
1. Reply, Though the major be true, yet the minor and the Argument are both false, for faith and baptism are not inseparably joined together, though the Apostles were sent to preach and baptise all Nations, Math. 28.19. yet many afterward fell and perished in unbelief; And on the contrary many have gone to Heaven that were never baptised, for we are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, Gal. 3.26. and Baptism is not here annexed, and although a man be baptised or dipped, if he believe not he shall be damned: All Christians or Saints are not made so by Baptism, but by another work.  
2. Reply, By this Argument none now should be baptised until they were able to work signs which Christ said should follow those that did believe, Mark. 16.17. And if you will grant signs or miracles are ceased, so also is the spirit of deserning who are believers.  
But in the next place he citys the decree of Pope Inocentius the third, and the decree of Gregory to prove baptism Antichristian.  
To which for answer, know that we have a far better ground, 1. because they belong to the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. Secondly, they are called holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. Thirdly, which is most of all, they are redeemed by the blood of Christ, Jo. 11.52. And lastly, The Apostles practise sufficiently settles us, who baptised whole Households, Acts 16.33. and yet none can affirm that all were believers in the household, nor prove no Children to be there. And upon this practice of the Apostles it is, that so many of latter as well as former godly Divines have practised this.  
And as for the Covenant in respect of the seals of Circumcission and Baptism, you and the rest which would make it but an outward seal, are much mistaken, for it is an everlasting covenant, Gen. 17.13. and though Circumcission be taken away because Christ is come, yet as Calvin saith, the grace of God which is the inward seal, and Baptism is a supply thereof.  
Your second Reason is, that there was a prefixed day for Circumcission, to wit, the 8. day, Gen. 17.12. but no day appointed for dipping or sprinkling.  
For answer whereof, know that although the eighth day be mentioned, yet the command was not absolute for the 8. day, and this will appear plainly in the example of the Children of Israel borne in the Wilderness, by the way coming out of Egypt, that were not circumcised till afterward, Josua 5.5. upon necessity circumsission might be deferred, as the eating of the Passeover might be put off, Numb. 9.10.  
Your third Reason is, that there was a precept for Circumcission to enjoin it from God himself, Gen. 17.11. and an example, Gen. 24.4, But say you neither precept nor example in Scripture to baptise Infants.  
For answer, there is a precept where both young and old are to be baptised, in Acts. 2.38, 39 Be baptised every one of you (saith Peter there) and to encourage all he is most express, and tells them the promise is made to them and to their seed, and to those whose children were afar of even to as many as the Lord our God shall call: And there is also an example Acts 2. in the Infancy of the Church, where in one day three thousand souls were added, which received the outward seal of Baptism, verse 41. and the Children could not but partake of the same outward Privileges with them.  
But to proceed, Argument 2. you argue thus; That which is not of faith is sin to the Church, or that person that doth it: But the Baptism of Infants is not of Faith, Ergo a sin.  
For answer whereof, to prove Baptism to Infants that are believers children to be of faith, against you thus;  
In the 19 of the Acts Paul tells the Disciples at Ephesus, That John babtised, saying; that the people should believe and repent on him that should come after him, verse 4. this was a command which he gave to those that were very ignorant, and had not learned whether there were a Holy Ghost or not, verse 2. though afterwards Paul laid his hands on them to declare that they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, and they received the Holy Ghost, and thus these children of those believing Parents being of the holy seed have right to Baptism, Acts 16.33. But to answer your Reasons as you call them.  
1. Say you, but Baptism puts Infants of believing Parents, into a state of grace and Remission of sin before calling.  
By which reason your own Testimony is fully against you, proving formerly that Baptism hath no such Prerogative.  
Because it is only the Election of Gods own purpose and grace, before the world began, that puts us into this state of grace, which is manifested unto, and conferred upon some before Baptism, Acts 8.36, 37. and upon others after Baptism, Acts 19.4. Baptism being only the outward Seal of the Church, and the work of grace upon the spirit, the inward seal as is formerly proved.  
2. Baptism constitutes the Infants of believing Parents members of a visible Church, for if believing husbands do not keep out unbelieving Wives, then are not their Children unclean, in such a sense as to be deprived of entrance into the Congregation. 1. Cor. 7.14.  
3. Your next reason in substance is answered already concerning the Covenant of grace to be the inward seal of God's Elect, and Baptism only the outward seal of the Visible Church, whose Members not being elected cannot be saved, but must needs fall away and make a mock at Christ, Heb. 6.6. and only those that have the inward seal they being baptised into Christ, whether Jew or Gentile are heirs of Heaven, according to the promise, Gal. 3.27, 28, 29.  
4. Your Reason is not sound, for none is so unwise to think grace is entailed to generation, but to regeneration, for it neither doth nor can follow that all that are baptised shall be saved, the contrary being already proved, and God is as well able to give Infants an habit of faith, so far to make them capable of Ascending to Heaven, if they die in Infancy as well as men and women, and therefore is it that to such belongs the Kingdom of God.  
5. The further you go the more you err, where you draw false conclusions.  
First, That all baptised persons are saved.  
Or secondly, That some being in the state of grace may fall away afterwards, and thus by your diving into an obscure nicety, you raze the foundation of Religion.  
6. But now you undertake to prove, that baptising of Infants opposeth the Kingly office of Christ in faith and order, for proof whereof you cite Math. 15.16. wherein Christ requires every one that is baptised to be a believer, unto which I answer it is most certain, and in the sight and account of God none have a right to Baptism but believers, yet this is not in the power of men to distinguish believers from unbelievers, and therefore according to that of Matthew 28.29. where you read the place, go teach and make Disciples, and that this must be done by baptising, and then teaching, so that Baptism in the first order is not opposed.  
But to your third Argument, wherein you argue thus; that consequence which is upheld by the tradition of men is destructive to the institution of Christ; wherein you abuse the Practice of those whose sufficient warrant from Scripture though you all carp at never so long, yet can never clear, your endeavour being to make the privileges of the Gospel to the Children of believers, so far short of what the Israelites under the Law did enjoy.  
And thus forgetting the settlement of peace in the Kingdom, you make the breach very wide, opposing and interrupting a Reformation covenanted for and so much endeavoured after by all those who desire to live in a conscionable obedience to the plain discovery of God's holy will, clearly laid down in his holy and sacred Word: whose desires and bend, are set to further that work which the wise master bvilders now have in hand, daily importuning the throne of grace, that the work may be so carried on, that all those that desire to live a holy life in all godliness and honesty, may obtain the desire of their souls, and the great endeavour of those whom they have entrusted to carry on that work; who have managed all things so in Church and State, as none can have cause to say or gainsay their wisdom, in an all mighty power assisting them, and the great God of Heaven and Earth perfect his work and praise in this our Zion, so that at the last we may have cause to say, blessed is he that prospered his own work, and thus gloriously perfected the same, Amen, Amen.  
FINIS.